an analytic study on the traditional studio environments and-libre

8/10/2019 An Analytic Study on the Traditional Studio Environments and-libre

1/8

World Conference on Educational Sciences 2009

An analytic study on the traditional studio environments and the useof the constructivist studio in the architectural design education

Sevin Kurt*

Cyprus International University, Nicosia, North Cyprus

Received October 24, 2008; revised December 25, 2008; accepted January 05, 2009

Abstract

The architect should be equipped with knowledge of many branches of study and varied kinds of learning. Thisknowledge is mainly constructed by means of practice and theory (Vitrivius, 1914). Architectural education isconsidered to be a complex process. Its creative demands must be supported by an understanding of art, science,psychology, mathematics, engineering and etc. The design studio has long been the major component ofarchitectural education. Traditionally it has involved a relatively small group of students under the direction of astudio master, and an instructor. This paper analyzes the characteristics of traditional studio environments, comparesit with the constructivist studio in general and recommends a transformation in the design studio.

2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Keywords; Architectural design education; studio environment; traditional design Studio; constructivism.

1. Introduction:

Learning can be considered as a process that involves the whole experiences of an individual influenced bydifferent factors such as his distinctiveness, educational environment, social environment, skills, abilities, and etc.Although learning is mainly a student-centered, the attitudes of instructors, the curriculum goals and the conditionsof the learning environment are also very effective in the process. Thus learning can be defined as the outcome of anindividual who is constantly active and interactive with her/his environment. Learning is contextual; it takes place in

a social context. Gagne suggests that different internal and external conditions are necessary for each type oflearning (Kearsley, 1994). Hence the educational environment has an enormous effect in learning.

*Sevin Kurt. Tel.: 90 392 6711111/2113; fax: 90 392 6711121.E-mail address:[email protected]

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2009) 401408

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

1877-0428/$see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.072


2/8

402 Sevin Kurt / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2009) 401408

1.1. Architectural education

Onat defines architectural education as a system of efforts that should be implemented individually in order toobtain necessary behavioral development compelled by architectural profession. This behavioral change should beachieved through individuals own experiences; otherwise it could not be permanent. For this reason, practice is

extremely important in architectural education (Onat, 1985, p.29).According to Teymur (2001) there are two purposes of architectural education. The first purpose is the education

/training of future architects and the second one is helping to bring up good, educated, citizens. In the light ofthese definitions, the theory and the practice of architectural education can be built on a set of parameters that havebeen derived as much from an intelligent common sense as from the philosophy of education.

1.2. Architectural design education

The architectural curriculum, as distinct from the majority of other disciplines in the university system, is

organized with a special, privileged, core subject; design. Design is an iterative, decision-making process thatproduces plans by which resources are converted into products or systems that meet human needs and requirementsor solve problems.

Design process can also be defined as a process which involves all activities which can be performed by adesigner from the beginning until locating the final solution (Kurt, 1994). This procedure is full of repeated actionswhich lie between a problem definition and the solution of this problem. It is the research and decision makingprocess that defines the problem to be solved by design. Rittel (1973) asserts that design can be thought of asproblem setting -locating, identifying and formulating the problem, its underlying causes, structure and operativedynamics- in such a way that an approach to solving the problem emerges. Architectural programming is adominating part of this process. Programming is generally viewed as an information processing system setting outdesign directions that will accommodate the needs of users, the client, the designer or the developer (Sanoff, 1999).

This information contains some basic quantitative data, which includes also constraints or requirements in termsof the production process. Such constraints and requirements guide the design process and shape the manufacturingenvironments like form features, proximities, adjacencies, dimensions, performance related issues as thermalacoustical or lighting expectations, and etc. (Pham, 1991). Correspondingly the nature of architectural designrequires management of multiple levels of information in different stages of the design process. The informationcreated at one phase along the process of design becomes input and constraint to the later stages.

Although the design process consists of regular experimentation, it can be said that architectural curriculumgenerally has few real variations in different countries (Teymur, 1985). They are variously informed by pedagogictraditions (e.g. Beaux Arts, Bauhaus, etc.), requirements of the profession or the registration boards or therecommendations of the accrediting bodies and, at studio floor, by ever-changing architectural 'doctrines','movements', 'languages', 'coles', 'fashions', graphic innovations and, more recently, the computer.

Kunz & Rittel, (1970) addresses design problems by using argumentation structures to facilitate a discussion

amongst the stakeholders about design issues, which allows the problem to be explored and framed. Design issuescan entail such varied items as questions, concerns and even discussions about procedural aspects of the designwhich need to be resolved before progressing. According to Lawson (1980) design problems often define a verywide area and the number of possible solutions is infinite. Unlike the problems of natural sciences, the goal ofdesign is not clearly set and it changes according to the environment it is situated. A designer might ask how, what,and why while setting up the problem and gathering necessary information but they are not the questions that adesigner would ask to solve a design problem. As a result, the ultimate design solution is vague and very difficult toachieve. Rittel (1984) expounded on the nature of ill-defined design and planning problems which he termedwicked (i.e., messy, circular, aggressive) to contrast against the relatively tame problems of mathematics, chess,


3/8

Sevin Kurt / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2009) 401408 403

or puzzle solving. Problem means there is a contradiction between existing condition and desired one. In order tosolve the design problem this opposition should be taken away (Kurt 1994).

Architectural curricula, like many professional education curricula (Dinham&Stritter, 1986) are composed ofthree general categories of academic work: The first category includes basic courses of liberal arts, second oneconsists of professional courses dealing with important aspects of professional practice such as building structures,materials and construction or environmental control systems, and the third group is full of apprenticeship

experiences which occur in the architectural studio. The students undertake a design project under the supervision ofa master designer or professor in the design studio.This design studio which is traditional in every school ofarchitecture, has a great importance in architectural education.

1.3. Design studio in architectural education

Design studio is the core of architectural education. The architectural curriculum has been based on the designstudio model which focuses on learning by doing. The architectural design studio offers a prime example of a

collaborative, multi-sensory, learner-centered, constructivist, experiential problem-based teaching environment.Usually, it is a pleasant studio space, from ten to as many as twelve students for per professor; arrange their owndrawing tables, papers, books, pictures, drawings and models. In this space, students spend much of their workinglives, at times talking together, but mostly engaged in private, parallel pursuits of the common design task (Schn,1983). "It is a process - a way of thinking during which the many elements, possibilities, and constraints ofarchitectural knowledge are integrated. At its best the design studio sequence provides the connective tissue thatbrings together, progressively, the many elements of architecture education" (Boyer & Mitgang, 1996; 85-86).

Architecture studio teaching can involve a number of varied activities. Before the project begins, the professor(s)may establish the goals, expectations, general procedure, and assessment criteria he (they) will employ for theproject. This aspect of instructional planning is called the design of a project assignment. During the semester,professors meet students either individually or in groups for design related discussions and clarifications. Then at theend of the project, traditionally, a final review or jury is executed. The desk critic is very important experience in

the studio education. It is a brief event occurring repeatedly through class hours. Typically, the critic moves throughthe studio in a random or sometimes an informal appointment basis, meeting with students at desks or at paneldiscussing their attitude, their thinking, their work, their progress and their problems with the project assignment.Each studio professor is responsible for ten or twelve students and must have 30 minute negotiation -may be twodifferent periods- in a week. Danahy believes that the level of a student skill is possibly the most profound variablein a design studio. Design process is a result of intelligence. This process refers the physical world to using semitransparency or filtering one's vision to symbolically create the illusion or feeling of containment (Danahy, 1992).

1.3.1. Similarities and dissimilarities: traditional studio / constructivist studio

General explanations about the system of the traditional architectural studio reveal that it is based on an ancientmodel of apprenticeship, with a constructionist assumption of learning through doing. However, in some cases thetraditional design studio in a school of architecture consists of a teacher telling students what to do and studentdoing what they are told: In the studio education, the professor initiates a design problem, the student responds withan attempted solution, and the teacher evaluates this during a desk critic or jury and offers more suggestions todevelop the design project. This sequence is behavioral rather than constructivist. This judgement suggests that thetraditional studio has some properties which needs to be incorperated into the constructivist studio. Hence,teaching/learning actions which are performed in traditional studio in architectural education should be analyzedand compared to the constructivist studio in detail.

Studio teaching/learning actions in architectural education have been examined by many, but most usefully byDonald Schn (1987). Based on a constructivist view of human perception and thought-processes, Schn (1987)

describes design as a reflective conversation within the design situation. According to this view, problems are


4/8


actively set or "framed" by designers, who take action (make "moves") by using a spatial-action language (sketchingand drawing). This action or move improves the (perceived) current situation by revealing new qualities andrelations unimagined before, which guides the designer for further moves to refine the situation.

Schn's concept of "Reflection in action" refers to how, in the course of acting, we improvise, changing ourbehavior to address unexpected new conditions. This improvisation is not a random exercise, but an intelligent,measured response that may even appear to an outsider as "the smooth performance of an ongoing task" (Schn

1987, p. 29). The design process is a prime example of "reflection in action." At each step, the designer evaluates theconsequences of the decision in terms of (1) the initially expressed problem criteria, (2) conformity to or violation ofimplications of previous decisions, and (3) new opportunities or constraints arising from the decision.

2. Classification of the Design Studio Practice

There are different types of design studio applications which can be implemented by the supervisor of the designstudio. These applications are categorized into five groups according to the critic style and/or given possibilities tothe student to be creative and productive.

Crit Type 1: There are eight or twelve students in each group. Students areobliged to take crit from studio supervisor for their design work whichstudied outside of the studio environment. They sit around a big desk asseen in Figure 2.1. Frequently the professor manages the discussion so theparticipation of the students is limited; the communication is under thecontrol of the supervisor.Strength: All of the students can listen to their friends critics, and have anopportunity and possibility to participate in the discussions. PreliminaryJury and Final Jury system is implemented.Weakness: The practice is supervisor-centered. Teaching occurs rather thanlearning. Lack of multi-media applications.

Figure 2.1. Crit Type 1

Crit Type 2:There are eight or twelve students in each group. Students areobliged to take crit from the studio supervisor for their design work studied

inside and outside of the studio environment. They are supposed to studytheir own desks. The studio supervisor gives desk critics, answers questionsindividually. No discussion takes place in the studio. (See Fig.2.2)Strength: All of the students can work in design studio during the studiohours. Preliminary Jury and Final Jury system is implemented.Weakness: There is not enough collaboration and participation in the studiopractice. Lack of multi-media applications.


Crit Type 3:The studio work has to be done by a group of students underthe supervision of a group of professors. Each professor gives advice to adifferent student at his/her desk. Thus each student can have different pointof view by taking crits from different professors. (See Fig: 2.3.) Generally,there cant be any class discussion. Each student has to construct his/her

own solution to the specific design problem according to the given adviceand recommendations.Strength: Each student can get crit from different supervisors. PreliminaryJury and Final Jury system is implemented.Weakness: There is not enough collaboration and participation in the studiopractice. Lack of multi-media applications.


Crit Type 4: There is a frequent jury system in the studio teaching. Agroup of professors who are responsible for different student groups come


5/8


together regularly in the juries. Common jury discussions will be held asseen in Figure 2.4.Strength: Even though it is limited, there are opportunities and possibilitiesof discussions and participation in the studio environment throughout the

juries.Weakness: The practice is supervisor-centered. During desk critics, studentsare supposed to study individually. Lack of multi-media applications.

First Group Second Group Third Group

Projects

Jury Members

Students

Figure 2.4. Crit Type 4Crit Type 5:A constant jury system is applied in the studio teachinga) Concentrated Studio: 2-3 professors manage the studio operations. Thestudents are at the same academic level and responsible for the same projectassignment.Crit Type 6:A constant jury system is applied in the studio teachinga) Spread Studio: 2-3 professors manage the studio operations. The studentsare at different academic level and responsible for different projectassignment.Strength: (Both Crit Type 5 and Crit Type 6) It encourages collaboration,

participation and discussion concerning the subjects and assignments.Weakness: (Both Crit Type 5 and 6) The multi-media application is limited.

Figure 2.5. Crit Type 5 and 6


6/8


2.1. The Evaluation of the Crit Types of the Design Studio Practice

Architectural design studio environment should have collaborative practice and flexible solutions, and ensureexplorations, participation and discussions. According to these criteria;

There occurs full discussions in crit type one and crit type 5, limited discussions crit type four, and nodiscussions in the remaining groups. Thus, discussions and inter-activity should be strengthened in these categories.

Generally in every crit type, the design process is an educator-centered one. Conversely, the design processshould be changed into a student-centered process.

In every crit type there is limited participation and collaboration between students. There is not enough groupstudy to motivate students to be creative and socially satisfied.

In all the studios there is a communication problem. Especially, educator-centered activities inhibit studentscreativity and prevent them from doing practice freely.

Assessment systems which focus on the end product make the process unimportant.There is not enough technical device and multi-media use in all types.In this context the properties of the traditional design studio can be defined as follows:Studio is the core of the architectural design education.In most architectural schools, studio schedule is arranged as two or three times a week each being at least four

hour blocks.The proportion of an educator to students is relatively low; it varies from 1/10 to 1/12.The learning environment is a problem based one and requires exploration.All learning and teaching models are unified in the studio education.

Teaching Method in StudioThe whole information system is applied to =======a specific problemLearning process is based on ==================doing practice.Students are prepared to problem-solving and role-playing circumstances. Design problem is given without one

specific solution, but there are always limitations technical, functional, rational or presentational (drawings,simulations, model, and etc.)Studio Procedure:

The process is full of entertainment, joy and uncertainties.Explorations are realized in a sequence.It is not certain that there will be complete success.The reasoning system is not linear and there are not prescriptions.Two dimensional and three dimensional explorations, articulations and reflections are required.The process can not be easily understood by the students at first time. But it requires a self start.Project assignments are given.Basic skills / tools are used to present the design idea.Content goals are set up.Studio critics (official Juries and non-official desk crits) are important.Specific readings are required (theory, history, typology study, hand working study etc.)

ObjectivesThe multimedia application is limited (digital or analog).The use of electronic media including computer in learning process is intended.The studio is focused on end product rather than design process.The assumptions resulted from the student skills and tools brouhgt to design studioThere are hidden parameters which encourage role-playing activities (question-answer, brainstorming,

interpretation)Structure

One or two project assignments are given in each academic semester.Students try to hide their work in order to prevent other students use their design ideas.Design is not a collective work, but individual.


7/8


Assessment of the result: Grading:Post-production assessment is done. Two and three dimensional presentations are evaluated, conceptual

intentions have secondary importance.Predictions

Dedicated, self-motivated students who are committed to the pursuit of excellence will be more successful.Results

sink or swim situation80 percent of the work load is done within 10 percent of the total time.

3. Conclusion and Recommendations: The transformation of the Traditional Design Studio to the

Constructivist Design Studio.

Constructivism is a learning theory that emerged in the early 1990's, rejects the objectivist view of reality and theidea that simply "communicating content to students will result in learning" (Jonassen, 1994, 1995), Constructivistteaching strategies carry with them labels such as "collaborative" or "cooperative" learning, "learning communities,"

"problem-based," "discovery," and "hands-on" learning, all of which can be used to describe the design studio. Ifthe traditional design studio environment is transformed to the constructivist studio, the existing problems of thedesign studio can be reduced. Hence, it is recommended that the traditional design studio should be replaced by theconstructivist studio (Kurt, 2002). The general properties of constructivist studio are as follows.Objectives

The studio focuses on the design process not the end product.New skills and tools are developed for learning procedure considering the course content.Multimedia applications are widely used. Computer technology helps the learning activity.Role-playing is encouraged. Virtal reality and simulations are used.

StructureDesign studio is structured as a spread studio. The students who are gathered in the studio may come from

different academic years. Project assignments are varied and may change according the skills of the different studentgroups.

Four or five major project subjects may be offered in any academic semester. Students can freely choose onemajor project assignment. Furthermore, they are also responsible for solving the sketch problems, minorassignments, exercises, case studies and etc. throughout the process.

Students can share their design ideas.Collaboration is very important in design process. Open discussion sessions are implemented.Desk crits and/or screen crits are done. Students and educators, who are from different geographical location

can participate in the design process.Assessment of the result: Grading:

The design process is evaluated.Students are supported to perform reflections on action.

Developed product is recognized as the representative of the process.In evaluating students success, the steps taken from the beginning of the process until the end is very

important.Predictions

Studio environment is designed according to students needs in order to achieve their academic aims.Electronic studio components are used.The possibilities of networks are widely used.

Possible Results in Constructivist StudioBoth educators and students will work and produce much more compared to the traditional studio.Computer, software, information technology, multimedia aplications and World Wide Web will be integrated

into the architectural design process, as expected.


8/8


Consequently, constructively structured design studio, can solve the minor/major problems that exist in thetraditional studio environments, and can create more appropriate, more collaborative and shared design processes.

References:

Boyer, E. L. & Mitgang, L. D. (1996). Building community: A new future for architectural education and practice. Princeton, NJ: The CarnegieFoundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Danahy, J., (1992) The computer aided studio critic: Gaining control of what we look at, In CAAD futures91, Schmitt, (ed), F.Vieweg & Sohn,s:121-138, Wiesbaden.

Dinham, S. M., and Stritter, F. T. (1986). Research on professional education. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rded., pp. 952-969). New York: Macmillan.

Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L.J., Wager, W.W.,1992, Principles of instructional design, H. Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, Fort Worth, TX.Kearsley, G. (1994). Conditions of learning (R. Gagne). [Online]. Available: http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/gagne.html [January 3, 2009].Kunz and Rittel (1970), Issues as Elements of Information Systems, Working Paper No 131, University of California, BerkeleyKurt, S. (1994) Tasarm srecinde analitik yaklamlar ve kamu ynetim binalarnn doku dili kullanlarak irdelenmesi, Gazi niversitesi.

(Unpublished Master Thesis)Kurt, S. (2002) Sanal Ortamlarn Mimari tasarm eitiminde kullanlmas iin bir model nerisi: Konstrktivist Oluum Modeli, Gazi

niversitesi,Lawson B. (1980) How Designers Think? The Architectural Press Ltd. London.Onat, E., (1981) Mimari tasarm eitiminin ilk basamanda kullanlabilecek bir yntem, doktora tezi, Ankara Devlet Mhendislik ve

Mimarlk Akademisi Mimarlk Fakltesi, Ankara.Onat, E., (1985) Sormaca, Mimarlk, 85,8, s.29-31.Pham D. T ed (1991).Artificial Intelligence in Design, Springer Verlang, pp. 199- 201Rittel, H., (1970). Some principles for the design of an educational system for design, DMG Newsletter.Rittel, H.W.; Webber, M.M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4:155-169.Rittel & Webber (1984). Planning Problems are Wicked Problems, in 'Developments in Design Methodology', Nigel Cross ed., Newyork: John

Wiley and SonsSanoff, H. (1992) Integrating programming, evaluation and participation in design: a theory Z approach, Avebury: Aldershot.Schn, D.A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Schn, D. A. (1991)The Reflective Turn: Case Studies In and On Educational Practice, NY: Teachers Press,

Columbia University.Teymur, N., (1985) Mesleki eitimde sorunlar, (ev. Mehmet Adam), Mimarlk, 85,8, s.18-19.Teymur, N. (2001) 4x4 Towards a Working Theory of Architectural Education, Presented at AEE 2001 Conference,

(http://cebe.cf.ac.uk/aee/pdfs/teymur1.pdf) (retrieved: January 4, 2009).

Vitruvius Pollio, The Ten Books on Architecture (ed. Morris Hicky Morgan), Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Online: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Vitr.+1.1.1 (retrieved January 3, 2009)

an analytic study on the traditional studio environments and-libre

Documents